ERIC EJ955684: Assessing Agricultural Literacy Elements of Project Food Land and People in K-5 Using the Food and Fiber Systems Literacy Standards

2011·0.12 MB·English

by  ERIC

Journal of Agricultural Education
Volume 52, Number 1, pp. 155–170
DOI: 10.5032/jae.2011.01155

Assessing Agricultural Literacy Elements of Project
Food Land and People in K–5 Using the Food and
Fiber Systems Literacy Standards

David V. Powell, Assistant Professor
Southeast Missouri State University
David M. Agnew, Professor
Arkansas State University

Agricultural literacy has been evolving as a discipline for over 25 years. In agriculture, as other
disciplines of education, the body of knowledge can be identified and measured by a set of standards. The
Food and Fiber Systems Literacy Standards, developed in the 1990s, have been widely accepted as the
standards for agricultural literacy. Also developed in the 1990s was an agricultural literacy curriculum,
called Project Food Land and People (FLP). The FLP curriculum, consisting of 55 units, is used in 27
states to teach science, math, social studies and language arts and to promote agricultural literacy in
grades Pre–K through 12. This study uses the standards and benchmarks of the Food and Fiber Systems
Literacy (F&FSL) to assess the extent to which FLP addresses the agricultural literacy standards for
grade levels K–5. Although there were variations in the level of coverage, all standards and benchmarks
of the F&FSL were addressed in the FLP units identified for grade groupings K–5. Congruence or
incongruence, as measured by F&FSL standards and benchmarks, identified potential strengths and
weaknesses to consider in revision of both curricula.

Keywords: agricultural literacy, curriculum alignment, integrated curriculum, food and fiber systems
literacy

Introduction Agriculture task force that began in 1981
(Agriculture in the Classroom Consortium,
Well into the twentieth century, close 2006). Seven years later the National Research
identification through daily contact with a Council expressed concern for declining
common agrarian culture and heritage resulted agricultural knowledge in the 1988 report,
in a shared sense of common knowledge that Understanding Agriculture: New Directions for
today we call agricultural literacy. This Education. In support of systematic instruction
connection has become progressively more about agriculture for all K–12 students, the
tenuous with modernization and urbanization. National Research Council stated that
Today, Americans are two to four generations agriculture “is too important a topic to be taught
removed from the farm (Leising, Igo, Heald, only to the relatively small percentage of
Hubert & Yamamoto, 1998; Madsen, 1998; students considering careers in agriculture and
Pokarny, 2003; Tennessee Department of pursuing vocational agriculture studies” (p.8).
Agriculture, 2004) and a majority of Americans, However, the lack of agricultural awareness
even in rural agricultural states, “have no direct is not just a concern of those in agriculture. The
link to agriculture” (Arkansas Foundation for perception of the general public has been
Agriculture, 2006, para. 1). challenged dramatically by books such as Fast
The first major initiative to address this Food Nation (Schlosser, 2002) and The
growing lack of agricultural knowledge was the Omnivore’s Dilemma (Pollan, 2006), calling to
Agriculture in the Classroom program resulting attention the lack of public understanding of “the
from an United States Department of moral and ecological repercussions” (Kuh, 2006,

155
Powell & Agnew Assessing Agricultural Literacy…
para. 3) of the decisions made in the effort to Conceptual Framework
produce food. Project 2061 of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science The F&FSL framework was developed over
(2006) has also raised many long–term a four–year period in the mid–1990s as “a road
agricultural literacy issues of management and map for infusing Food and Fiber Systems
policy related to food production, resource use, knowledge into core academic subjects and
and sustainability. across grade levels” (Leising, et al., p.4). This
Recognition of need for agricultural framework was organized into five thematic
knowledge raised awareness of a concern for standards:
definition of boundaries in the emerging
discipline of agricultural literacy. This marked a I. Understanding food and fiber systems
first step toward developing a balanced II. History, geography, and culture
curriculum to promote agricultural literacy as III. Science, technology, and environment
well as efforts to measure the ability of existing IV. Business and economics
curricula to convey a balanced body of V. Food, nutrition, and health.
agricultural knowledge. Throughout the 1990s,
the effort to define the discipline of agricultural Each standard was described by a
literacy and its sub–categories of knowledge benchmark with both cognitive and affective
continued. During this time, two notable objectives at each of five grade level groupings
systematic curricular developments arose – Food (K–1, 2–3, 4–5, 6–8, and 9–12), which were
and Fiber Systems Literacy (Leising, et al.,1998) sequenced by increasing complexity and
and Food, Land and People (2004). Each difficulty. The framework was designed “to
developed independently as parallel responses to clearly outline the knowledge and understanding
the growing interest in agricultural literacy. to be agriculturally literate” by “drawing out
Field tested in 1996 and 1997, both have since food and fiber connections from core subjects”
been adopted in many states promoting (p. 9). Example lessons were included as
agricultural literacy. appendices, but the bulk of the “challenge for
educators in infusing food and fiber systems
Purpose literacy into core academic subjects” (p. 10) was
left open for the user to resolve in the course of
The purpose of this study was to determine lesson planning.
the extent to which Food and Fiber Systems Malecki, Israel, and Toro (2004) defined
Literacy (F&FSL) benchmarks measure the infusion of agricultural literacy into the
agricultural literacy objectives of Food, Land curriculum as “the purposeful integration of
and People (FLP) lessons in grades K–5. agricultural topics into the mandated
curriculum….as natural interdisciplinary
FLP lessons were analyzed for agricultural linkages” (para. 5). The North Central Regional
literacy content in order to determine: Educational Laboratory (2004) has also defined
curriculum infusion in a more general context as
1. The extent to which F&FSL standards and “an educational approach that uses real–life
benchmarks were addressed by FLP lesson issues as the context for teaching academic skills
units per F&FSL grade level grouping (K–1, and knowledge” (para. 1), but also noted that
2–3; 4–5). this definition is sometimes applied to
2. The relative frequency of usage for curriculum integration. The interchangeable use
individual F&FSL standards and of these two terms can sometimes be confusing.
benchmarks in FLP lesson units by grade Outside agricultural education, a curriculum
level grouping (i.e., which standards or infusion approach has been commonly applied
benchmarks were addressed more or less to introduce content and issues not normally
than others). associated with an academic core subject area,
such as substance abuse, violence, HIV/AIDS,
bullying, and social ostracism into K–12 classes
across subject areas” (Northeastern Illinois
University, n.d., p. iii). The University of

Journal of Agricultural Education 156 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011
Powell & Agnew Assessing Agricultural Literacy…
Richmond’s alcohol awareness program has interdisciplinary unit organizes learning into a
used curriculum infusion in the form of “fit–it– common theme, but content and activities in any
in” modules to insert special activities during the given class are still bound to the subject–area
semester or as out–of–class assignments specific outcomes of that class. Math and
(University of Richmond, 2002). Similarly, the science are still studied as math and science,
Close Up Foundation has advocated curriculum although the lesson may be related to a unifying
infusion as a model for incorporating service theme such as the oceans or colonial times. In
learning into the classroom as an enrichment contrast, curriculum integration begins with a
strategy built into the existing curriculum, rather theme that (ideally) reflects student concerns
than simply an “add–on,” feature (Close Up and experience, through objectives and activities
Foundation, n.d). that are derived from the exploration of the
However, interviews with teachers who used logical consequences of learning about the
a curriculum infusion model to incorporate theme.
Rivers to Reefs environmental education The 55 lesson units in the FLP curriculum
experiences into science classrooms revealed “textbook” Resources for Learning (2003) were
three areas of concern that limited the usefulness based on a conceptual framework of seven
of infusion (Parlo & Butler, 2007). The first comprehensive, thematic, ideas about the
concern was associated with time constraints. interconnectedness of Food, Land and People.
Teachers felt “compelled to closely follow their These themes were: awareness and appreciation;
schools’ established standards” in order to meet historical perspectives; the agricultural base;
state and federal testing accountability economics; images, attitudes, and behaviors;
mandates, resulting in “demands on time that did decisions; and implications for the future. The
not allow for instruction of extra material” (p. lessons and activities of the FLP curriculum
34). The second concern was the difficulty thematically integrate agricultural issues and
teachers experienced in facilitating conceptual topics “into all aspects of the standard PreK
transfer linking environmental field experience through 12th grade curriculum” (Colorado
to classroom instruction. The third concern was Foundation for Agriculture, n.d., para. 6) in units
finding ways to logistically include outdoor written for varying ranges of grade level in
experiences in a curriculum bound by physical varying combinations throughout the PreK–12
and temporal limitations of a traditional curriculum.
classroom setting. However, as Blackburn (1999) noted, any
State assessment directors have also cited “supplemental” non–mandated or non–tested
demands on classroom time as a deciding factor subject material must be directly tied to the core
in curriculum decisions, reporting sweeping academic curriculum before it will be accepted
changes following the adoption of accountability by teachers and administrators. In order to
mandates under the No Child Left Behind Act facilitate implementation of FLP either as a
(Pederson, 2007). State assessment of subject stand–alone course of study or as supplemental
areas outside the requirements of No Child Left material for pre–existing courses, lessons and
Behind decreased in 46 out of 47 states activities were specifically designed “to support
surveyed. Assessment directors from 25 states state and national academic standards”
noted a corresponding “reduction in resources (Colorado Foundation for Agriculture, para. 6).
and time for non–tested subject areas” (p. 289). Powell et al.(2006) affirmed this in a single–
Interestingly, directors from five states noted state curriculum analysis study, showing strong
increased “integration of non–tested subject correlations to a majority of the student learning
content into tested subject areas” and “increased expectations in that state’s required curriculum
alignment of curriculum and assessment with frameworks.
state standards” (p. 290). The question concerning the research
Nesin and Lounsbury (1999) defined reported here is also one of correlation to
curriculum integration as a student–centered standards. However, unlike previous studies by
collaborative approach utilizing a thematic Powell et al. (2006) investigating correlation
organization of learning without regard to between FLP and state curriculum frameworks,
traditional subject area boundaries. This differs the focus shifts to correlation with F&FSL
from interdisciplinary instruction. An standards and benchmarks as the self–described

Journal of Agricultural Education 157 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011
Powell & Agnew Assessing Agricultural Literacy…
outline of “knowledge and understanding to be skills, and assessment products to produce a
agriculturally literate” (Leising, et al., 1998, p. skill–by–skill timeline of outcomes to use in
9). planning and alignment to standards (Mills,
2001).
Methodology Each FLP unit included a few general
objectives that focus mostly on the integration
Curriculum alignment, sometimes equated process rather than specific classroom
with curriculum correlation, is the process of behavioral objectives that address either
linking teaching units, instructional materials, academic content objectives or agricultural
and objectives to standards and assessments literacy standards. For example, the unit
(Aviles, 2001; Johnston, n.d.; Milks, 2001, Expression Connection has five general
LaMarca, 2001). LaMarca defined alignment in objectives for a two–lesson unit, including
both vertical and horizontal dimensions in terms “identify words and phrases that relate in some
of depth and content match between standards way to farming…,” “use reference books to
and curriculum items or assessment tasks. justify connections,” and “justify connections
Vertical alignment referred to the complexity, or through discussion.”
“depth,” of instruction, whereas horizontal In order to analyze content match (LaMarca,
alignment described “breadth” by “matching 2001) between FLP and F&FSL, it was first
course materials by instructional content” necessary to write classroom objectives that
(Aviles, 2001, p. 7). LaMarca operationally specifically identified concepts and activities to
defined content match in terms of “analysis of build agricultural literacy. After writing sample
broad content coverage, range of coverage, and classroom behavioral objectives for each
balance of coverage” (para. 4). Broad content concept or activity in FLP units designated for a
match, also called categorical congruence, is given grade level, the objectives were correlated
generally measured by specific objectives that to the F&FSL benchmarks for the designated
“contribute to attainment of this broadly defined grade level, by comparing the objectives to the
skill” (para. 5). At a grass roots school level, wording of the descriptors and explanatory
horizontal alignment is usually achieved by commentary provided in the F&FSL Guide. Part
“mapping the curriculum onto the standards” of a sample page from the resulting teacher
(Johnston, n.d., para. 2). In this process, teachers guide (Powell, 2007) is shown in Figure 1.
analyze the curriculum for content, specific

Journal of Agricultural Education 158 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011
Powell & Agnew Assessing Agricultural Literacy…

FLP Unit 1: The Plant and Me (PreK–3)
Sample Lesson Objective F&FSL Benchmark and Descriptor
Standard I Understanding Food and Fiber Systems
Grades A Students will recognize that Meaning Students will discover food, clothing,
K–1 humans eat plants (and and shelter originate from plants and
animals). animals.
Grades A Students will relate the Meaning Students will tell how agriculture
2–3 provision of basic survival provides people’s basic food, clothing,
needs of plants to meeting and shelter needs.
human needs.
D Students will recognize that Importance Students will determine resources, such
both plants and humans need as water and land, are shared by
air, food, light, and water. households, businesses, and agriculture.
They will describe examples of multiple
uses for land and water resources.
Standard II History, Geography, and Culture
Grades A Students will recognize that Role in Students will illustrate how agriculture
K–1 humans grow plants (and Evolution of provides food, clothing and shelter.
animals) for food. Civilization They will classify agricultural products
as food, clothing, or shelter.
Standard III Science, Technology, and Environment
Grades A Students will observe and Relationship Students will identify the natural life
K–1 document the life cycle of a to cycles of plants and animals. They will
growing plant. Ecosystems illustrate life–cycle stages.
B Students will identify natural Dependence Students will identify natural resources.
resources air, food, light, and on Natural They will illustrate natural resources
water. Resources used by Food and Fiber Systems.
Grades A Students will recognize Relationship Students will describe components of an
2–3 interdependencies between to ecosystem. They will illustrate specific
plants and animals in the 0 – Ecosystems components of an ecosystem in the
2
C0 cycle. community.
2
Figure 1. Partial copy of p. 1 (reformatted) from Unit–by–unit correlation of Food, Land and People
lessons to the Food and Fibers Systems Literacy Benchmarks for grades K–5 (Powell, 2007)

This is the same (admittedly subjective) benchmarks were addressed at least once at all
process used by classroom teachers in mapping grade levels analyzed in this study (K–1, 2–3; 4–
content coverage as well as that used by 5). However, not all standards and benchmarks
textbook adoption committees and textbook were addressed in the same proportions. The
editors in state–by–state promotion of textbook distribution and patterns of “coverage,” showing
adoptions (Johnston, n.d.; Mills, 2001). The alignment of FLP lessons to F&FSL standards
resulting teacher guide (Powell, 2007) has been and benchmarks varied considerably between
used in several FLP training workshops to raise grade levels. An analysis of variations in the
awareness of standards–based agricultural relative frequency of usage (Objective 2) is
literacy in the implementation of FLP lessons presented here to provide an empirical
and materials in the classroom. foundation from which to address issues of
vertical and horizontal alignment.
Results
Grades K–1
Results for Objective 1 were very Of the 55 FLP lesson units, 13 were
straightforward. All F&FSL standards and designated for use in kindergarten and/or first

Journal of Agricultural Education 159 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011
Powell & Agnew Assessing Agricultural Literacy…
grade (Units 1–13). All five F&FSL standards the FLP units designated for grades K–1
were addressed at least once in these 13 units addressed four or more F&FSL standards;
(Figure 2). However, some units broadly another six units addressed two or three
addressed many standards, while other units standards; only one unit addressed a single
focused in more depth on fewer standards. Six of standard.

6

s 5
d
r
a
d
n
ta 4
S
L
S
F
F
of 3
r
e
b
m
u 2
N

1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
FLP Unit Number

Figure 2. F&FSL Standards used per FLP unit for grades K–1.

FLP lesson units designated for grades K–1 Technology and Environment), and V (Food,
also addressed all 21 F&FSL benchmarks for Nutrition and Health); some benchmarks were
grades K–1. However, some F&FSL standards used only once or twice. Of the nineteen total
were addressed by more benchmarks and some occurrences of Standard I benchmarks in K–1
by fewer (see Figure 3). For example, Standard I FLP lessons, Benchmark I–A was addressed in
(“Understanding Food and Fiber Systems”) was eight different FLP units. Benchmark V–A also
addressed at least once in nine FLP units. was addressed in eight units and Benchmark III–
However, lessons with a strong focus on A was addressed in seven units. In contrast, nine
Standard I addressed as many as three or four benchmarks (in various standards) were
benchmarks in this standard. Some benchmarks addressed only once. Of the remaining
were used repeatedly, especially introductory benchmarks, six were addressed four to six
benchmarks from Standards I (Understanding times each and three benchmarks were
Food and Fiber Systems), III (Science, addressed two to three times each.

Journal of Agricultural Education 160 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011
Powell & Agnew Assessing Agricultural Literacy…

20

18

16

14

e
g
a 12
s
U
f
y o 10 Used at least
c once
n
e
u 8 Total usage
q
e
r
F
6

4

2

0

I II III IV V
F&FSL Standard

Figure 3. Frequency of usage for F&FSL Standards in all FLP units for grades K–1.

Grades 2–3
Twenty–five FLP lesson units were designated for grades 2–3 addressed all five
designated for use in the second and/or third F&FSL standards, five units addressed four
grade (Units 1–25). All five F&FSL standards standards. Nineteen units addressed either two or
for grades 2–3 were addressed at least once (see three standards. Only one unit at this grade level
Figure 4). Although no individual FLP units addressed just one standard.

Journal of Agricultural Education 161 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011
Powell & Agnew Assessing Agricultural Literacy…

5

4

s
d3
r
a
d
n
a
t
S
L

S2
F
F
f
o
r
e
b
m
u1
N

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
FLP Unit Number

Figure 4. F&FSL Standards used per FLP lesson unit for grades 2–3.

The relative frequency of correlation to All 22 F&FSL benchmarks for grades 2–3
individual F&FSL standards in FLP units for were addressed by FLP units designated for
grades 2–3 varied considerably more than for grades 2–3, but extremes of “coverage” for
grades K–1. Standard I (Understanding Food individual benchmarks were even more
and Fiber Systems) was used at least once in 22 noticeable at the upper end of the frequency
units and Standard III (Science, Technology, and range than the extremes described for grades K–
Environment) at least once in 17 units, but 1. Two benchmarks (I–A and III–A) were each
Standards IV and V (Business and Economics; addressed in 15 units and two benchmarks (I–C
Food, Nutrition and Health) were each used at and I–E) each addressed in 11 units. Only four
least once in only nine units (Figure 5). benchmarks (III–D, IV–D, V–C, and V–D) were
Incidence of multiple benchmarks from the same addressed by just one or two units. Six
standard showed Standards I and III in FLP benchmarks were addressed by three units each.
lesson units to be even more predominant for The remaining eight benchmarks were addressed
grades 2–3 than for grades K–1. Standard I was by four to eight units each.
addressed in 48 FLP units and Standard III in 32
units. By comparison, Standards IV and V were
addressed in only 14 and 12 units (Figure 5).

Journal of Agricultural Education 162 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011
Powell & Agnew Assessing Agricultural Literacy…

50

45

40

35

30
e
g
sa
U
f 25 Used at least
y o once
nc 20 Total usage
ue
q
re 15
F

10

5

0

I II III IV V

F&FSL Standard

Figure 5. Frequency of usage for F&FSL Standards in all FLP lessons for grades 2–3.

Grades 4–5
Forty–two FLP lesson units were designated either four or five F&FSL standards; 33 units
for grades 4–5 (Units 3–45). All five F&FSL addressed either two or three standards; only
standards were addressed at least once at this three units addressed just one standard.
grade level (Figure 6). Six FLP units addressed

Journal of Agricultural Education 163 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011
Powell & Agnew Assessing Agricultural Literacy…

Number of FFSL Standards for Grades 4-5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1
2
3
4

5

6
7
8
9
10

11
12
13
14
15

16

17
18
r 19
e
mb 2201
u
N 22
t 23
ni 24
U
P 25
L 26

F 27
28
29
30
31

32
33
34
35
36

37
38
39
40
41

42

43
44
45

Figure 6. F&FSL Standards used per FLP lesson unit for grades 4–5. (Note: FLP Units 1 and 2 were not
designated for grades 4–5)

Figure 7 shows the frequency of usage, Geography, and Culture) was addressed by 31
standard by standard, in grades 4–5. Standard I benchmarks in 24 units, Standard III (Science,
(Understanding Food and Fiber Systems) was Technology, and Environment) by 39
used more than twice as often as Standard V benchmarks in 26 units, and Standard IV
(Food, Nutrition, and Health), in both single and (Business and Economics) by 29 benchmarks in
total usage (52 benchmarks in 31 units versus 21 20 units. The usage of multiple benchmarks
benchmarks in 14 units). Standard II (History, closely mirrored the frequency pattern of usage

Journal of Agricultural Education 164 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011